And a similar confirmation from ActiveMQ: *Re: license for javax.jms... and javax.management.... classes distributed with main activemq jar? Click to flag this post <javascript: void Nabble.setFlag();>*
by Gary Tully <http://old.nabble.com/user/UserProfile.jtp?user=1114619> Dec 01, 2009; 01:17pm :: <http://old.nabble.com/Re%3A-license-for-javax.jms...-and-javax.management....-classes--distributed-with-main-activemq-jar--p26596551.html> those come from geronimo-j2ee-management_1.0_spec, the geronimo distribution of those j2ee apis that is Apache licensed. You may be able to find some historical detail in the geronimo mail archives. 2009/12/1 Marshall Schor <m...@... <http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26596551&i=0>> > > Hi - > > We're trying to figure out how to properly license a distribution where we > are including the apache-activemq-x.x.x.jar. > > This jar includes javax.jms... and javax.management... classes. > > Are these licensed under the Apache 2.0 license, or is a separate license Marshall Schor wrote: > Here's the response re: javax classes from legal-discuss > > -Marshall > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: mx4j jar including javax.management... classes; activemq > jar containing javax.management and javax.jms... classes - license question > Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:03:13 +0000 > From: Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> > Reply-To: legal-disc...@apache.org > To: legal-disc...@apache.org > References: <4b15535b.5050...@schor.com> > > > > Marshall Schor wrote: > >> The mx4j jar (used in many apache projects, including tomcat, geronimo, >> ActiveMQ) claims to be licensed under an apache style license (see: >> http://mx4j.sourceforge.net/docs/ch01s06.html ) . >> >> If you unzip the jar file, you find it has, in addition to mx4j classes, >> javax.management... classes that appear to be from the j2ee java >> distribution. >> > > No, they are not from any other J2EE distribution. > > The nice thing about open source is that you can look at the source > code. A quick peek shows that these classes have been implemented by the > mx4j team. This is something they are required to do in order to provide > a compliant JSR003 and JSR160 implementation. > > Tomcat does something similar for the JSP and Servlet APIs, Geronimo > does it for all the J2EE APIs, etc > > >> Is it OK to distribute these javax... classes with this license? >> > > Yes. > > >> ActiveMQ's main jar,apache-activemq-4.1.1.jar, for instance, includes >> javax.management... and javax.jms.... classes. >> > > Again, as it is required to do in order to implement the spec. As long > as the source for those classes was developed by the ActiveMQ team (or > obtained under an appropriate license) - which I am sure it would have > been - then there is no issue. > > What would not be OK, for example, would be copying the implementation > of any classes from the JBoss source tree. > > >> We are redistributing >> this main jar, as well as mx4j, as part of our project (uima-as), and >> are trying to get the proper license for this. >> > > As long as you provide the proper entries in the LICENSE and NOTICE file > then you will be fine. That is the only thing you need to worry about > for those libraries. > > Mark > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscr...@apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-h...@apache.org > > > > > > >
